1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: the “party intention” under the first instance court’s 7th judgment, and the Defendant’s argument at the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following additional determination, thereby admitting it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion does not expressly state that the total amount of supply subject to forfeiture in the instant sales contract is the amount paid as down payment by 10%.

Since the meaning of the terms and conditions is not clear and should be interpreted favorably to the defendant who is the customer, the penalty should be deducted from the sixth intermediate payment, not the down payment.

B. We examine the judgment, 10% of the total supply amount subject to forfeiture as penalty in the instant sales contract is the same as the down payment (10% of the sale price) and the amount. The instant sales contract includes a loan agreement for interest on the intermediate payment. In the event the instant sales contract is cancelled, the Plaintiff can repay the principal and interest of the buyer’s loan to the buyer in lieu of the financial institution (Article 4(3)), and the settlement between the Plaintiff and the financial institution can be made with respect to the principal and interest of the intermediate payment loan between the Plaintiff and the financial institution (Article 4(3). The interpretation that the penalty is confiscated in the intermediate payment is inconsistent with the purport of Article 4(3) of the instant sales contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the payment that is deducted from the penalty in the instant sales contract is the down payment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.